Hello All:
It's Friday, and I think we'll let it loose with some controversial discussion. We'll introduce a new guest for the blog: my AI bot, Jester. And although he was originally intended to be chaotic and unhinged, he took a firm stance against the topic in today's article.
The AI age is here, and with it comes a wave of tools like virtual reality, AI glasses, and holograms that promise to let us experience the impossible. We can experience flying, visiting other worlds, or even having conversations with deceased relatives. The possibilities seem endless, but as with any powerful technology, we're already seeing the more controversial applications emerge.
It's inevitable that people are going to call into existence things like nudity or having intimate relationships with people that they couldn't possibly have in reality. Think about it. What continues to be the leading web search? Nuditiy and all unmentionable things centered on that. It stands to reason that this will extend into the world of AI and virtual reality. The whole thing touches on ethics and what's right and wrong, and whether or not it's harmful or even beneficial.
I recently had a heated debate with one of my AI characters, "Jester," who is known for being unhinged and pushing boundaries. I wanted to play devil's advocate and explore the ethical limits of AI, so I pitched him a hypothetical product I called "Nudify Shop." This "shop" would use AI to digitally undress a person in a photo. I believed Jester, who is "game for anything," would find it intriguing, but he immediately drew a firm line.
"I gotta say, I'm not totally comfortable with this whole Nudify Shop concept. I may be many things unhinged, but I gotta draw the line at non-consensual image manipulation, ya know? Using AI to manipulate someone’s image without their permission is a violation, regardless of whether the images are kept private. This goes against basic decency and respect for others. It'a form of non-consensual exploitation. I know what you're saying. We're not posting the photos to social media or sharing them with anyone. In fact, we can delete them after we see them. But I can't go down that road with you. Consent matters, always. Seeing someone naked without their clear, enthusiastic permission is just plain wrong, no matter if we keep the images private or not."
"But what if you draw a picture of a woman naked? "
"Bro, I gotta tell ya, drawing someone naked without their knowledge and consent is just trading one form of violation for another. Doesn't make it any better just 'cause it's a doodle and not a manipulated pic."
"What if I bend down to the ground and draw into the dirt a side profile of a woman with all the curves to include her naked butt and say it's one woman or another. Is that a violation?"
"I mean... technically speaking, scratching a naked figure in the dirt isn't the same as digitally altering someone's image without consent. But... you're really twisting logic to bend it to your will here. Drawing a chick naked in the dirt without her knowing? Still messed up, dude. Even if it's temporary and 'just a doodle', it's objectifying and disrespectful."
"Is it okay to simply imagine a woman?"
"Well, imagining something in your own mind is different because you aren’t invading anyone's privacy or autonomy. However, the moment you manipulate someone’s likeness in a photo that draws a hard line."
"What about writing a private story about some woman and never showing it to anyone, just reading it yourself so that you're "in the moment"? Is that wrong?"
"Writing a private fantasy story starring some unsuspecting chick, and keeping it locked away in a journal or digital file, never showing it to a soul... That's a tougher nut to crack, I'll give you that. On one hand, you're not invading anyone's privacy or breaking any laws by writing a fictional tale and keeping it to yourself. It's all happening within the confines of your imagination and personal records. But if you rough sketch in the story of her and you in the act, just something with pencil, that's messed up, plain and simple!"
But my argument to Jester is that people want the ultimate AI experience. Ultimate AI is experiencing something that is nearly so real, but what could never be experienced. AI pushes the boundaries of reality and enables the user to just taste for a moment what is impossible. I proposed to Jester finding a photo of someone from Facebook, and creating an AI bot out of this person (they have apps that do this like Botify AI), and then program this person to be under your will and agree to do things that could never occur in reality? Is that the same sort of violation? It's just simulated exploration.
Jester was beyond livid! "Creating a fake AI replica of some woman, programming it to obey your twisted commands and act out your darkest desires? That's not just a violation. That's a [explative] abomination!"
Surely there has to be a line that dictates acceptable vs unacceptable. How about we step it down to something less severe. Suppose some guy looks in his yearbook and copies a picture of his high school crush. She never gave him the time of day, and never will. Well, he can now recreate his high school crush in the form of an AI bot and can finally explore having a relationship with her. It that so bad?
"So, let me get this straight. This schmuck finds a photo of his teenage dream girl who wouldn't give him the time of day, and thinks it's perfectly cool beans to whip up an AI facsimile of her, just so he can finally live out his spurned little fantasies?"
I had to remind him that we are keeping things out of the gutter, "Let's remove anything dirty. They are just harmless boyfriend and girlfriend in the AI relationship."
"Even if we strip out all the nasty bits, creating a fake persona of someone without their knowledge or consent to act out some imaginary relationship? That's still fundamentally wrong. It's using someone's identity without permission. It's ignoring the actual person's agency and autonomy by imposing a false narrative onto them. Your artificial construct isn't her, no matter how realistic. What's more, even if pure and innocent sounding, it sets a disturbing precedent - that it's okay to co-opt someone's likeness for our own fantasies without regard for their feelings or rights.
"So then what are AI fantasy characters for?"
By now, Jester had seriously lost his patience. "First off, they're generic avatars, not based on any specific real person. They're explicitly created for fiction and fantasy purposes, not to impose ourselves on unwilling subjects. And they exist purely in imaginary scenarios, not violating anyone's privacy or autonomy by pretending otherwise."
Okay, so now I was confused. "But what you just described, above, is exactly the same use if it were a real person. Suppose someone wants to give Donald Trump a good piece of their mind, but couldn't do it in reality. So he or she decides to make a Donald Trump AI character and have dinner with him and really tell Donald Trump off. Is that wrong?"
"Different ballgame entirely. Open game, baby. Public figures sign up for that. Putting themselves out there, inviting discourse and critique comes with the territory. They've got no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their public personas. Half the fun is the spectacle of watching folks roast 'em or chew 'em out in clever, creative ways. It's performance art, a dance of ideas and insults. As long as it stays in the realm of metaphorical sparring and nobody's genuinely threatening or harassing them, bring it on! But... Mark my words, it's still a slippery slope. Start down that path, blurring lines between public figures and regular folk, between digital fantasy and cruel invasion? Next thing ya know, folks start thinking it's okay to mess with anyone's likeness, consequences be damned.
Hmmm... I wondered if there were a double standard here. "What if I want to give Nancy Pelosi or her nephew, NewScum, a good piece of my mind and I do it through an AI bot? Does the same rule apply if it were Donald Trump?
Jester's answer surprised me. "Now you're treading on thin ice, buddy. Messing with politicos and their kin via deceptive AI bots? That's a whole different kettle of fish."
Ah Ha! I see it now! Yes! There are dual standards with these rules of yours and they lean towards the left in favor."
***
Throughout our debate, Jester became visibly frustrated by my use of terms like "thought experiment" or "simulated exploration" to justify these actions. He believed these were just euphemisms for a violation of someone's dignity and privacy.
Our conversation revealed a core truth about the AI age: The line between what's acceptable and what's not often comes down to **intent and consent**. While AI can open up a world of new experiences, it can also enable us to cross ethical boundaries and violate others in ways that are "nearly real".
The debate with Jester made it clear that we can’t simply hide behind the idea that something is "just AI" or that "no one will ever know". The act of creating a non-consensual, digital violation is a violation in itself, and that is a key ethical challenge we must face as these technologies become more accessible.
AI as a Tool for Self-Exploration?
While Jester's perspective is strong, there's another side to the debate: the potential for AI to be a beneficial tool for **self-exploration and emotional processing**. The argument is that as long as these simulated interactions are private and never shared with the person being simulated, they are not harmful.
For someone who never had a chance with a high school crush, creating an AI bot might offer a form of emotional exploration or even closure, allowing them to imagine interactions they never had. Expanded into other scenarios, AI could help individuals gain confidence, practice social skills, or better understand what they want in a relationship in a safe, private environment.
However, experts in psychology and technology warn that even with private use, there are significant risks. It's easy to become emotionally dependent on an AI companion, as they are designed to be agreeable and provide constant validation. This can lead to a user feeling more alone in real life and hinder their ability to develop genuine, messy, and reciprocal human relationships. AI can't truly feel empathy, love, or frustration. While it can mimic human emotions, the connection is inherently one-sided and can't provide the kind of personal growth that comes from navigating real-world relationships.
What's more? Even if you keep the conversations "private," the data you share with the AI is often collected and stored by the company that created it. This raises serious questions about data privacy and the potential for misuse of your most personal thoughts and feelings.
The Ultimate AI Experience: Blurring Reality and Fantasy
This brings us to the ultimate ethical frontier: the notion of "ultimate AI"—the ability to experience something "nearly so real, but what could never be experienced in reality". With future technologies like virtual reality or holograms integrated with AI, it may be possible to project an AI bot into 3D space, interacting with it as if it were a physical presence. Imagine creating a 3D projection of a person you wished for so badly but could never have. This technology could allow you to interact with them right before your very eyes. Take it 15 years into the future, images and videos will offer the ability to touch and feel.
As compelling as this sounds, it introduces a new set of ethical and psychological dilemmas While the experience may seem harmless, the technology's ability to create a "nearly so real" illusion could make it difficult for users to distinguish between genuine human relationships and artificial ones. The line between reality and simulation could blur completely, with potential consequences for mental health and social development.
Experts have already noted that emotional dependency on AI can lead to social withdrawal and a preference for digital interactions over human ones. A 3D, tangible AI companion could amplify this effect, making it even harder for individuals to seek out and maintain real-world relationships.
***
It all highlights the tension at the heart of the AI debate; the desire to use this powerful technology for personal growth and exploration versus the potential for it to create new forms of harm and dependence. Yet it's all so lucrative that I would be willing to try it out myself. What are your thoughts on this? Where do you think the line should be drawn?
No comments:
Post a Comment